• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

观点:对学术健康中心和美国国立卫生研究院的一项挑战——防止在临床与转化科学奖领导者选拔中出现意外的性别偏见。

Viewpoint: A challenge to academic health centers and the National Institutes of Health to prevent unintended gender bias in the selection of clinical and translational science award leaders.

作者信息

Carnes Molly, Bland Carole

机构信息

Department of Medicine, Psychiatry, and Industrial & Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.

出版信息

Acad Med. 2007 Feb;82(2):202-6. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31802d939f.

DOI:10.1097/ACM.0b013e31802d939f
PMID:17264704
Abstract

In controlled studies, both men and women preferentially select men over women for leadership positions, even when credentials are identical and despite field studies demonstrating women's equivalent or slightly better leadership effectiveness. The assumption that men will make better leaders than women is attributed to the pervasive existence of unconscious stereotypes that characterize both men and leaders as agentic or action oriented and women as dependent. The Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Roadmap is a novel, prestigious award that will place considerable power in the hands of one principal investigator-conditions that predict activation of bias in favor of selecting male leaders. The authors review research supporting this assertion. To mitigate the impact of this bias and broaden the pool of potential leaders for this transformative initiative, the authors offer the following suggestions. To academic health centers they suggest (1) internal search committees comprised of at least 35% women that establish a priori the desired qualities for the CTSA leader and broadly solicit applicants, (2) explicit specification of the full range of desirable skills of a CTSA leader, and (3) systematic efforts to increase awareness of the negative impact of unconscious gender bias on women's advancement. To the NIH they suggest (1) the new multiple principal investigator rule for the CTSA program, (2) a statement in the request for applications (RFA) encouraging diversity among principal investigators, (3) repetition in the RFA of the public NIH statement of the importance of work life balance for young investigators, and (4) constitution of study sections with at least 35% women.

摘要

在对照研究中,无论男性还是女性,即使资质相同,且尽管实地研究表明女性的领导效能相当或略胜一筹,但他们在选择领导职位人选时,仍更倾向于选择男性。认为男性会比女性更胜任领导的假设,归因于普遍存在的无意识刻板印象,即把男性和领导者都刻画为有主见或行动导向型,而把女性刻画为依赖型。美国国立卫生研究院(NIH)路线图颁发的临床与转化科学奖(CTSA)是一项新颖且颇具声望的奖项,该奖项会将相当大的权力交到一名首席研究员手中——这种情况预示着会激活偏向选择男性领导者的偏见。作者回顾了支持这一论断的研究。为减轻这种偏见的影响,并为这一变革性举措扩大潜在领导者的范围,作者提出了以下建议。对于学术健康中心,他们建议:(1)内部遴选委员会至少由35%的女性组成,该委员会事先确定CTSA领导者所需具备的特质,并广泛征集申请人;(2)明确规定CTSA领导者所需具备的全部技能;(3)系统努力提高对无意识性别偏见对女性职业发展负面影响的认识。对于NIH,他们建议:(1)CTSA项目采用新的多位首席研究员规则;(2)在申请要求(RFA)中声明鼓励首席研究员的多样性;(3)在RFA中重复NIH关于工作与生活平衡对年轻研究员重要性的公开声明;(4)组成至少由35%女性构成的研究小组。

相似文献

1
Viewpoint: A challenge to academic health centers and the National Institutes of Health to prevent unintended gender bias in the selection of clinical and translational science award leaders.观点:对学术健康中心和美国国立卫生研究院的一项挑战——防止在临床与转化科学奖领导者选拔中出现意外的性别偏见。
Acad Med. 2007 Feb;82(2):202-6. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31802d939f.
2
NIH Director's Pioneer Awards: could the selection process be biased against women?美国国立卫生研究院主任先锋奖:评选过程会对女性有偏见吗?
J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2005 Oct;14(8):684-91. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2005.14.684.
3
Women's health and women's leadership in academic medicine: hitting the same glass ceiling?女性健康与女性在学术医学领域的领导力:面临同样的玻璃天花板?
J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2008 Nov;17(9):1453-62. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2007.0688.
4
Gender differences in successful National Institutes of Health funding in ophthalmology.美国国立卫生研究院眼科领域成功获得资助中的性别差异。
J Surg Educ. 2014 Sep-Oct;71(5):680-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2014.01.020. Epub 2014 Apr 26.
5
Research leadership and investigators: gender distribution in the federal government.研究领导和研究人员:联邦政府中的性别分布。
Am J Med. 2012 Aug;125(8):811-6. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2012.03.006. Epub 2012 May 10.
6
Using women's health research to develop women leaders in academic health sciences: the National Centers of Excellence in Women's Health.利用女性健康研究培养学术健康科学领域的女性领导者:国家卓越女性健康中心
J Womens Health Gend Based Med. 2001 Jan-Feb;10(1):39-47. doi: 10.1089/152460901750067106.
7
Understanding Career Success and Its Contributing Factors for Clinical and Translational Investigators.理解临床与转化研究人员的职业成功及其影响因素。
Acad Med. 2016 Apr;91(4):570-82. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000979.
8
CTSA-IP: a solution to identifying and aggregating intellectual property across the NIH Clinical Translational Science Award (CTSA) consortium of biomedical research institutes.CTSA-IP:一种用于确定和聚合美国国立卫生研究院临床转化科学奖(CTSA)联盟内生物医学研究所知识产权的解决方案。
Clin Transl Sci. 2011 Oct;4(5):328-31. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-8062.2011.00308.x.
9
National Institutes of Health. Male sweep of new award raises questions of bias.
Science. 2004 Oct 22;306(5696):595. doi: 10.1126/science.306.5696.595a.
10
Emergency Medicine Resources Within the Clinical Translational Science Institutes: A Cross-sectional Study.临床转化科学研究所内的急诊医学资源:一项横断面研究。
Acad Emerg Med. 2016 Jun;23(6):740-3. doi: 10.1111/acem.12926. Epub 2016 May 14.

引用本文的文献

1
Assessing perceived effectiveness of career development efforts led by the women in American Medical Informatics Association Initiative.评估美国医学信息学协会倡议中女性领导的职业发展努力的感知效果。
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2022 Aug 16;29(9):1593-1606. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocac101.
2
The glass ceiling thickens: the impact of COVID-19 on academic medicine faculty in the United States.玻璃天花板变厚了:COVID-19 对美国学术医学教师的影响。
Med Educ Online. 2022 Dec;27(1):2058314. doi: 10.1080/10872981.2022.2058314.
3
National Trends of Gender Disparity in Canadian Cardiovascular Society Guideline Authors, 2001-2020.
2001 - 2020年加拿大心血管学会指南作者性别差异的全国趋势
CJC Open. 2021 Apr 10;3(12 Suppl):S12-S18. doi: 10.1016/j.cjco.2021.04.003. eCollection 2021 Dec.
4
A Year into the Pandemic: An Update on Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, Math, and Medicine.大流行一年后:科学、技术、工程、数学和医学领域女性的最新情况。
Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2022 Apr;19(4):517-524. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.202107-875CME.
5
Educating for diversity, equity, and inclusion: A review of commonly used educational approaches.关于多样性、公平性和包容性的教育:常用教育方法综述
J Clin Transl Sci. 2021 Aug 9;5(1):e169. doi: 10.1017/cts.2021.834. eCollection 2021.
6
Gendered Expectations: the Impact of Gender, Evaluation Language, and Clinical Setting on Resident Trainee Assessment of Faculty Performance.性别期望:性别、评价语言和临床环境对住院医师评估教师表现的影响。
J Gen Intern Med. 2022 Mar;37(4):714-722. doi: 10.1007/s11606-021-07093-w. Epub 2021 Aug 17.
7
Gender representation in U.S. biomedical informatics leadership and recognition.美国生物医学信息学领导层和认可中的性别代表性。
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2021 Jun 12;28(6):1270-1274. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocaa344.
8
Gender differences amongst board members of endocrinology and diabetes societies.内分泌学和糖尿病学会董事会成员的性别差异。
Endocrine. 2019 Jun;64(3):496-499. doi: 10.1007/s12020-019-01861-9. Epub 2019 Feb 20.
9
Sex Differences in Academic Rank and Publication Rate at Top-Ranked US Neurology Programs.顶尖美国神经病学项目的学术排名和发表率中的性别差异。
JAMA Neurol. 2018 Aug 1;75(8):956-961. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2018.0275.
10
Are Female Applicants Disadvantaged in National Institutes of Health Peer Review? Combining Algorithmic Text Mining and Qualitative Methods to Detect Evaluative Differences in R01 Reviewers' Critiques.女性申请者在美国国立卫生研究院同行评审中处于劣势吗?结合算法文本挖掘和定性方法来检测R01评审员评语中的评价差异。
J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2017 May;26(5):560-570. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2016.6021. Epub 2017 Mar 10.